dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Hardware Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 23, 2024 In Re: 29344085 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a senior hardware engineer, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 
attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, she had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner shows: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 2 Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the 
Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's 
merit may be 
demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. 
In a statement submitted with the petition, the Petitioner stated that he intends to "design 
state-of-the-art wireless sensors, high-speed receivers, and mixed-mode integrated circuits using 
complex architectures in order to implement next generation communication systems that have high 
bandwidth, high data rates, and high efficiencies." He further indicated that he intends to pursue a 
position as a senior hardware engineer withl Ior a similar company, where he will conduct 
preliminary research and critical technology development of the sixth-generation communication 
network technology and the new generation ofWi-Fi wireless transmission technology. The Petitioner 
also provided personal statements and supporting evidence in the form of recommendation letters, 
academic records, resume, publications and citation statistics, and reports and articles from the 
industry. 3 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and 
national importance. While we agree that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, 
we do not agree with the Director's determination that the endeavor has national importance for the 
reasons outlined below. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a]n undertaking 
may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within 
a particular field." Id. We also stated that"[ a ]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
2 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds a Ph. D. in electrical engineering from.___________ __. 
in Taiwan. 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. Further, to 
evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we 
look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. 
The Petitioner intends to work for I I or a similar company in the United States as a senior 
hardware engineer and claimed his duties will include research in the field of integrated circuit and 
semiconductor design. While the record describes his past work and research, the Petitioner offers 
little detail about the proposed endeavor. In other words, the Petitioner describes the proposed 
endeavor in terms of what he has already done, but he does not outline in specific detail any new 
design projects or tasks he will undertake. The Petitioner generally asserts that his work will have 
broad application to a variety of technical areas and communication products, such as smartphones, Wi­
Fi systems, Bluetooth wireless systems, and global positioning systems. 
Although the Petitioner also described his proposed endeavor as conducting research, we have little 
information concerning any specific research projects. Here, we discern a distinction between hardware 
engineering duties as part of his senior hardware engineer role and research as part of his proposed 
endeavor, but we do not have sufficient information with which to determine whether or how they differ. 
It is not known how much time the Petitioner would devote to his proposed research endeavor while also 
executing his hardware engineering duties for his employer. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of his publications and citation record to establish how his past 
research success suggests that his future endeavor will have a similar impact. Most of the Petitioner's 
research publications were produced while the Petitioner was a graduate researcher. While we 
acknowledge that evidence of the impact of his past work provides a basis to suggest that his future 
work will have a similar impact, this past research acclaim does not in itself establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. Here, the Petitioner has not identified the specific nature of his 
proposed future activities so that we might determine the endeavor's possible impact, nor has he 
identified how any future research would be disseminated into the community such that its potential 
can be properly evaluated. Moreover, as noted above, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained 
what portion of his time will be devoted to the hardware engineering duties, and how performance of 
those duties in the course of his employment could detract from the time he might devote to research. 
The Petitioner has not established how his past research record supports a finding that his future work 
will have a similar impact or that such impact would rise to the level of national importance. 
Even if we assume that the Petitioner conducts research as a part of his duties atl Ior a similar 
employer, this still does not adequately address how his research would be known widely enough to 
have a broader impact rising to the level of national interest. Asl Iand other similar entities 
presumably solicit business from clients and customers, it is not apparent that any internal research 
discoveries conducted during the course of his employment would be made publicly available rather 
than maintained as proprietary information. In addition, the Petitioner does not offer a sufficiently 
direct connection between his research and integrated circuit design improvements that might be 
produced as a result of his findings in the field of semiconductor research. Accordingly, we conclude 
that the Petitioner must establish a more direct connection between the proposed endeavor and the 
broader implications of it. 
3 
The record also includes letters of recommendation from individuals who speak favorably about how 
the Petitioner 's past research and technical achievements have contributed to communication and 
networking technologies. In examining the authors' claims concerning the Petitioner's past research 
and achievements, we observe that the authors focus on those achievements and do not offer 
information concerning the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor. Overall, we observe that the authors 
broadly report the same information about the Petitioner's past research topics and technical 
achievements. While research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way in order 
to be accepted for publication, this alone is insufficient to substantiate a claim of impact to the field. 
The authors offer little detail to substantiate a finding that the Petitioner's research has affected 
communication and networking technologies or the semiconductor industry as a whole. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. 
Matter ofCaron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion 
or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way 
questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here, although the authors discuss the nature of the work the 
Petitioner has performed in the past, they offer little specific information concerning the Petitioner's 
prospective future endeavor. As such, these letters are of little probative value as they do not 
meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance. 
The Petitioner also presented articles discussing the importance of wireless and networking 
technologies. However, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 889. In Dhanasar , we further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed 
endeavor and that"[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national 
or even global implications within a particular field." Id. While the articles offer useful background 
information, they are of little probative value in this matter as they do not discuss the impact of the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. 
Further, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. The 
imprecise nature of the Petitioner's proposed future research does not sufficiently demonstrate how it 
would impact wireless and networking technologies or the semiconductor field more broadly, as 
opposed to being limited to his employer and its customers. Simply obtaining employment in a worthy 
field or industry, such as integrated circuit design, does not warrant a national interest waiver. 
Accordingly, without sufficient documentary evidence of its broader impact, the Petitioner's proposed 
research does not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. Similarly, inDhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise 
to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. 
at 893. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that his specific proposed endeavor has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. The evidence does not show that the Petitioner's activities performed during his 
4 
employment with I I or other similar employer would have economic impacts beyond the 
clients and customers served by his employer such that it will have broader implications for businesses 
in the United States. 
Finally, we note the Petitioner's statements regarding his expertise and prior career accomplishments 
in the field of wireless and networking technologies. These statements, however, address aspects of 
the second Dhanasar prong but do not address how the proposed endeavor in the United States has 
broader implications beyond his immediate employer and its clients, as required by the first Dhanasar 
prong. See id. Moreover, the Petitioner's focus on the importance of the semiconductor field in 
general does not address aspects of the specific endeavor and how the performance of the planned 
activities under the endeavor would have broader implications, rising to the level of national 
importance as contemplated by Dhanasar. See id. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not adequately described his proposed endeavor. Furthermore, to the 
extent that his proposed endeavor can be understood, we conclude that the record does not contain 
sufficient evidence to establish its national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong, and 
we will therefore withdraw the Director's finding on this issue. In any future national interest waiver 
proceedings, the Petitioner must establish that he qualifies under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model 
or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest 
of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. See Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that that the Petitioner had not established that he is 
well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, based on a review of the Petitioner 's education, 
publication and citation history, recommendation letters, and progress both in his career and towards 
his proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not apply the proper 
standard ofproof, instead imposing a standard stricter than the preponderance of the evidence standard. 
The Petitioner further relies on Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994), arguing that the 
Director erroneously applied the law by not considering the totality of the evidence provided, 
specifically the Petitioner's personal statements, letters of recommendation, academic documents, and 
publications and citation history. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence to evaluate 
the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
5 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner is not well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner earned a Ph. D. in electrical engineering in July 2020. While this is sufficient to show 
his eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification, and is sufficient to show a plan for continued 
employment in hardware engineering, it does not establish that his level of expertise is at least 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in that field. The Petitioner has not shown that his 
academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor. We look to a variety of factors in determining whether a petitioner is 
well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and education is merely one factor among many 
that may contribute to such a finding. 4 
Regarding prior experience, the Petitioner claimed to have two years of experience working as a 
hardware engineer for I I at the time of filing. The record, however, contains no 
documentation or verification from this employer confirming the Petitioner's employment or 
describing the duties he performed in this role. The record as currently constituted does not provide 
an overview of the Petitioner's work experience in the field and therefore does not reflect how the 
Petitioner's prior performance of his claimed hardware engineering duties is either a similar effort as 
that of his proposed endeavor or how it constitutes a record of success. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's prior activities and technical achievements as described in the 
recommendation letters do not demonstrate that they are either a similar effort as that of his proposed 
endeavor or how they constitutes a record of success. Although the letters speak generally of the 
Petitioner's realization of certain technical achievements and skill in his field, they do not identify any 
recognition, achievements, or significant contributions to his field that tend to reflect that the Petitioner 
is well positioned to advance his endeavor. They similarly do not demonstrate the development of a 
plan or model for future activities that the Petitioner has developed or played a significant role in 
developing. General observations that a petitioner has extensive experience and achievements in their 
field are not sufficient alone for a petitioner to meet their burden of proof. As a matter of discretion, 
we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int 'I, Inc., 
19 I&N Dec. at 795. Here, we conclude that letters are not sufficiently detailed or persuasive for the 
Petitioner to meet his burden of proof. 
Similarly, the Petitioner's history of publishing the results of his research does not show a record of 
success relating to his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner argues that his peer reviewed journal articles, 
conference presentations, and number of citations to his work by other researchers shows that he is 
well positioned to advance his endeavor. Although the elevated ranking of these journals, as noted by 
the Petitioner, may be one factor contributing to a showing of an individual researcher's record of 
success, we will not assume that every article published in a high-ranking journal is indicative of a 
record of success. In addition, the Petitioner's relatively small number of published papers counters 
the positive consideration of his record due to the prestige of the journals in which he has published. 
While the Petitioner's documentation indicates education and experience in the field, and includes 
recommendation letters praising his research and technical achievements, such evidence of his past 
4 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(D)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
6 
experience and accomplishments does not rise to the level of rendering him well positioned to advance 
the proposed endeavor. The letters here primarily discuss the Petitioner's accomplishments while 
acting as a graduate researcher rather than discussing a past record of success in similar or related 
efforts, a model or plan for future activities, interest from potential users, or other factors that would 
help establish that the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. See Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
Finally, the Petitioner pro oses competing proposed endeavors (i.e., working as a hardware 
engineering for I 1or a similar entity and conducting integrated circuit research). The 
Petitioner's inconsistent statements cast doubt on his ultimate proposed endeavor which undermines 
his eligibility for the benefit. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582 at 591 ("Doubt cast on any aspect 
of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining 
evidence offered in support of the visa petition"). As stated in our discussion of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner's description of his endeavor is wide-ranging and generally vague 
in its goals, complicating any evaluation of the Petitioner's ability to advance the endeavor. The 
Petitioner has not provided evidence of qualifications beyond those expected of an individual working 
in a hardware engineering position. As the Petitioner has not established that he has developed an 
endeavor that rises to a level commensurate with that of national importance, we cannot make a 
determination as to whether the Petitioner is well positioned to potentially achieve an endeavor. The 
Petitioner has not established that he is well positioned to achieve a proposed endeavor. 
For the above stated reasons, the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the second Dhanasar 
prong. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
As explained above, the third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. Here, the Petitioner claims that he is eligible for a waiver due to the impracticality of 
labor certification and the shortage of professionals within his area of expertise. However, as the 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and that he is well 
positioned to advance that endeavor as required by the first and second prongs of the Dhanasar 
framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. Since these issues are dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his 
eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary 
to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first and second prongs of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
7 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8